(no subject)

From: Adrian Teo (ateo@whitworth.edu)
Date: Fri May 03 2002 - 13:04:58 EDT

  • Next message: Joel Cannon: "Re: Ugaboobah & YHWH (fwd)"

    Hello Mike,

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: MikeSatterlee@cs.com [mailto:MikeSatterlee@cs.com]
    > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 2:07 PM
    > To: ateo@whitworth.edu; asa@calvin.edu.
    > Subject: Re: Adam as head + two creation accounts

    > AT: Thanks for clarifying your position. How do
    > you understand
    > John 6 about
    > Jesus insisting that they had to eat his flesh and drink his
    > blood? Also in
    > the context of the last supper, when he said, "This is my body...."?
    > I'm not sure what your point is. I did not say that I
    > understand every
    > passage in the Bible literally. I said I understand Genesis 1
    > literally.
    > Obviously there are many passages of scripture which were not
    > meant to be
    > understood in an entirely literal way. Many passages were
    > certainly meant to
    > be understood metaphorically, allegorically or symbolically.
    > I don't believe
    > Genesis 1 was. But that is just my opinion.

    Mike, my point of acking that question is to try to understand your
    criteria for deciding if a particular passage is to be read literally
    or not. I may be wrong, but I suspect some inconsistency there.

    > You don't have to be fluent in Hebrew to understand the point
    > I was making.
    > All you have to do is read Gen. 1:29 in a literal
    > translation. A "literal"
    > translation is one which does not change the content of the
    > Hebrew or Greek
    > in order to create more natural sounding English sentences.
    > Such translations
    > are often hard to read. Their goal is total accuracy rather
    > than readability.
    > All the translations you quoted are not "literal" translations.

    Do you speak another nonEuropean language other than English? I do
    (Chinese), and I can tell you that literal word-for-word translation
    more often than not tend to mess up the intended meaning of the

    BTW, I've read that modern scholars have argued that the Gen 2
    creation account (Yahwist) is actually OLDER than the Gen 1 account
    (Priestly). What do you make of that?


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 03 2002 - 14:06:55 EDT